Comment (8)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiThe silver lining in the climate change cloud
The risks of climate change offer a unique opportunity to have a serious ethical discussion -- whatever your ethics may be.
Future generations may look back on climate change as a fortunate sorrow if it proves to have been an early wakeup call for the need to find shared ethics for an interconnected world. Shared ethics are not the same as universal ethics -- the idea we will all agree on all our values -- which are not feasible. But finding some basic human values we can agree on, instead of always focusing on our disagreements, is important well beyond climate change. Among the reasons climate change might function this way is, first, that it affects all of us, making us all personally identify with the harms and risks. Personal identification with a threat is a powerful trigger for ethical concern.
Second, the dangers of climate change are universal -- they cross social, cultural, and religious barriers and the North/South divide.
So, as individuals and societies, everyone must respond to the ethical issues those dangers raise. That openly challenges the intense individualism that has become dominant in contemporary liberal Western democracies.
Finding some basic human values we can agree on, instead of always focusing on our disagreements, is important well beyond climate change.
Social scientists distinguish between pro-individual and pro-social behaviour. The latter stems from concern for others and a feeling of moral obligation to do the right thing by them, a feeling that research shows is more common than often assumed or recognised, especially by politicians. In a recent article, politics professor Andrew Dobson pointed out that for climate-change solutions to be effective, they must encourage, and certainly not undermine, that moral sense. So not only might climate change provide an opportunity to develop shared ethics, but developing those ethics may help us to find solutions to climate change.
Third, climate change problems are not just theoretical and abstract; they are practical and concrete -- another powerful trigger for ethical concern. It's much easier to ignore or dismiss ethical issues raised by situations we don't physically experience.
Fourth, we can start from an agreement that climate change is alarming, rather than starting from disagreement, as is more common in ethical analysis. Starting from agreement makes it much more likely we will identify the values we hold in common -- something we routinely fail to do -- and, as a result, reinforce and promote those values.
Fifth, responses to climate change will need to be based in earned trust, not blind trust. Earned trust ("Trust me because I will act in your best interests") is an egalitarian concept that requires sharing of information and decision-making. Blind trust ("Trust me because I know what is best for you") is a paternalistic concept that depends on authority, status and power. Using earned trust to address the ethical challenges of climate change will promote such trust in general, and augment social trust on a global scale.
Sixth, dealing with climate change provides an important example of science in the service of ethics. It makes us aware that science can help us to find solutions to ethical problems, not just create new problems. Still, a pure technological fix will not be sufficient. We must freely choose to change our behaviour to favour more the common good -- including of future generations. Ethics can help us make that choice and change.
Seventh, climate change is a powerful reminder of our obligation to hold our world, nature and the natural (including our humanness) in trust for future generations. The new technoscience, with the unprecedented powers it gives us to change all life, means we must do that in ways no previous generations have had to contemplate. We must reconnect with nature and be guided by ethics that respect nature and the natural, and constantly ask ourselves: What do we owe our great-great-grandchildren? What are our obligations to far distant generations? Can the future trust us?
Eighth, climate change is a particularly appropriate context in which to develop a concept of "anticipated consent" as a guide in decision-making. That requires us to ask: Can we reasonably anticipate that future generations would consent to what we both do and don't do now? If not, ethics demand that we change our behaviour. A concept of "anticipated consent" will be ethically valuable far beyond dealing with climate change.
In many respects, climate change presents us with a unique opportunity to see whether we can put our ethics into practice on a global scale. Reducing its harms could become a common ethical cause we can all buy into and, in doing so, allow us to bridge all our divisions. Most of all, I propose that dealing with it ethically requires acting with profound respect for all life and what sustains it. And that requires having an acute sense of the finitude and fragility of the Earth, wise ethical restraint and the courage to say "no" -- especially to ourselves -- when ethically necessary. Whether we can do that will be an important trial of whether we can do the same when it's required in relation to many future ethical issues that we are likely to face.
Margaret Somerville is founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University in Montreal. Her latest book is The Ethical Imagination: Journeys of the Human Spirit.
David
One of the most articulate proponents on this view of global warming is Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, who recently delivered the UK’s BBC4’s Reith lectures in various world cities and also online. The message was fundamentally neo-Malthusian.
I strongly echo the cautionary comments above about anthropogenic global warming. It is far from a settled issue, and ethical discussion of the response to global warming, especially attempts to control it based on unproven hypotheses, should include the effects of perhaps needlessly restricting economic growth. It’s not just about rich westerners driving SUVs, but helping to bring millions of people out of poverty.
I also wish to point out to readers of this website that, at least from what I can see, the strongest advocates of the anthropogenic global warming position, and Kyoto-style attempts to control it, are also usually in favour of population control and related policies and technologies.
Nacho mentioned ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. This was a documentary made by Martin Durkin of the UK’s Channel 4.
It provides a useful opportunity to hear opposing views from a range of specialists.
From seeing some of his previous work, I would have some reservations about Durkin’s approach. It would be useful to examine some of the more detailed arguments made by the contributors in their own writings.
I firmly agree in an effort to arrive at a shared ethics on the environment but I guess we need to have a fundamental knowledge of what constitutes of being a man (philosophically and metaphysically) and this involves ethics in universality as we are all human beings, one in essence but diverse in potentialities. This being one in essence will help us dramatically in arriving at a solid, constant, moral, healthy ethical perspective.
Congratulations to Margaret Somerville for deep her and abiding commitment to mankind`s ethical development. I agree with her whole-heartedly in advocating a better moral and ethical environment for all, including a respect for the Earth and the Nature around us. All would agree that we must not exploit our natural environment for our own selfish gratification.
It is, however, important that we have the facts on climate change correct before we start implementing major changes.
There is much evidence around to support the fact that climate change (if it is happening at all) is more the result of Earth`s natural cycle rather than something signicantly impacted upon by mankind`s developments. For example, Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology has his doubts about global warming.
I also appreciated Aliza Racelis` very genuine comment regarding Al Gore`s “Inconvenient Truth”. I would point out to Aliza though, that Al Gore`s environmental credentials consist of a law degree, so it is possible that he may be out of his depth just a little. Global Warming could be a “Convenient Lie.” If this is the case, then it is both morally and ethically wrong to have people living in fear about something that may not be true.
I agree that environmental issues are very important and they may have great ethical connotations.
However, the specific problem of human-caused global warming and climate changes (especially due to CO2 emissions) is far from demonstrated. In fact, there are many important scientists and all over the world that doubt about it.
In his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, Mr. Al Gore presents some data that are not yet proved, and I think that leads to confusion.
I vividly recommend to the people who are interested in this subject to watch a documentary made by the Oxford University (I think), as a reaction to Gore’s movie. They interview many scientists and climate experts from different countries, about this specific matter of human-caused global warming. The video is called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, and it can be found at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170
I agree with Seamus Grimes. Your environmental ethics article is indeed timely and relevant.
I have just finished teaching a one-semester course on Business Ethics and Corporate Governance here at the University of the Philippines, and I must admit that Ethics in general --both the teaching of it and its practice-- is truly a challenge and an uphill climb. It indeed continues to be an educational battle, and we professors will just have to trust that our ethics teaching will sooner or later sink in.
As for environmental ethics, specifically Global Warming, I wonder if people have viewed Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”? Also, for Philippine contributions to Corporate Social Responsibility, I suggest that we read Prof. Nick Poblador’s recently-published book “Strategy Demythicized”. His url is: http://nick.poblador.us/
An ethical perspective to this challenge is positive and helpful.
It should also help to maintain an openness in the scientific debate, despite the impatience of political forces to ensure immediate responses. The danger here is that science is becoming overly politicised and is being hugely influenced by finding trends.
An ethical perspective can also encourage a more optimistic approach to this challenge. This is not the first major environmental challenge that humanity has faced, even if its scale is more significant than previous ones, and there is a record of successful innovations.
When we notice the world of business adopting a more positive approach to the challenge and seeing opportunities for innovation and profit, rather than merely seeing the constraints, then there is real scope for optimism.
From a political perspective, ethics must be translated into pragmatic policies.
Page 1 of 1 :