Everyday Ethics

It is inevitable that as certain scientific claims are brought to light, corresponding ethical questions follow.  For example, if it were suddenly discovered that all mammals are without question highly sentient creatures that have complex emotional response systems as well as traits that could only be called “consciousness”, the moral debate over the appropriate treatment of animals would take a rapid and sudden turn.  Thus, it is not at all surprising that as climate change has become a dominant media story as well as a subject of much scientific inquiry, the field of “climate change ethics” has emerged in an effort to solve the moral dilemma of climate change.

Although it is certainly my intent to be critical of climate change ethics and its proponents, I am by no means suggesting that climate change is not a legitimate scientific phenomenon.  It is quite possibly the greatest challenge that humanity has faced thus far with regard to our long-term survival, and it can be easily and cogently supported by verifiable scientific data.  The problem, however, is that a rather brief analysis of the ethical issues related to climate change reveals that there is very little about this matter that is morally debatable, and there is certainly nothing about it that qualifies as a dilemma.  Further, to suggest that there are a wealth of legitimate ethical questions surrounding climate change grants legitimacy to positions that deserve no such status.

A prominent example of the alleged “moral dilemma” presented by climate change is the phenomenal expense of converting our energy supply system, for example, into one that is not based on the burning of fossil fuels.  First, one can make a convincing argument for why this project should be undertaken without even mentioning climate change issues.  Burning fossil fuels is an unsustainable practice that threatens national security, destroys ecosystems and wildlife habitat, and pollutes the air and water.  It will arguably be more expensive to clean up the mess that burning fossil fuels has made of our ecosystem than it will be to simply adopt a new system altogether.  In any event, this is an economic question rather than a moral one.  If I have the option of either continuing to burn fossil fuels for energy or not doing so, I cannot cite economic concerns as evidence of a moral dilemma.  While the consequences of a particular economic strategy are certainly up for debate, the expense of a new energy production system is not itself evidence of a moral dilemma.

Further, the tendency of moral philosophers to engage in debates like this sends entirely the wrong message about the legitimacy of such views.  Trying to convince someone that we morally ought to wean ourselves off fossil fuels despite their concern about the cost of doing so suggests that economic concerns are themselves moral concerns.  In fact, they are not.  This is tantamount to suggesting that if, for example, you hit someone with your car and injure them, your ability to pay their hospital bill is a morally relevant consideration when determining whether you ought to dial 911.  It is certainly part of the story, and something that you will have to deal with, but that does not make it a morally relevant consideration.

Our goal here is not simply to engage in philosophical sputtering, but to offer the reader, and especially the non-philosopher, something that is readily applicable to their own lives.  In this case, considering the moral implications of climate change can help us to recognize that moral questions often include nonmoral factors, and that we sometimes need to filter out these considerations in deciding what the right thing to do actually is.  Economic concerns are perhaps the most potent of nonmoral factors, as they are perilously difficult to disregard.  However, if our goal is to develop our ethical selves, striving to discover the right way to live, we cannot permit the strength of nonmoral concerns to dissuade us from doing what we know to be right. 

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.