Spencer Schillerstrom 1/6/2015
Blog 2: Responsibility to Act
After today’s discussion on the
topic of action with regards to climate change, we created a Venn diagram that emphasized
four main courses of action. Those courses were personal action, social action,
the ‘in-between,’ and little/no action. Out of all of these types, it was very
well supported throughout the class that the idea of just pursing personal
action, especially in the situation of a monk, was acceptable. I however
disagree greatly with this class consensus and I wish to explain why.
First of all, each member of this
planet has a responsibility to take care of our planet. Whether or not one group
is more responsible than the other, we have all benefited from the planet in
some way and are therefore obligated to take care of it as well. Setting aside
our benefits from the planet, each person also has a moral obligation to
control the current climate crisis as much as possible. If an individual is to
only pursue personal action (which makes no contribution in slowing climate
change) without regards to a larger picture, they are indirectly accepting that
others will perish because of the climate changes. There is something very vicious
about that image. Even a monk, who may be the most peaceful form of a world
citizen, has a moral responsibility to help in the greatest way that he can. That
is certainly not just personal action.
While every individual has somewhat
of a responsibility, it is the affluent individuals in the world who are
morally and socially responsible to take the first and largest step towards a sustainable
future. This is another message that Garvey illustrates in his book The
Ethics of Climate Change: Right and
Wrong in a Warming World in the chapter “Responsibility.” In order to find
true responsibility, as Garvey explains, we must find who caused the problem in
the first place. It is reasonable to conclude that the past few generations
have contributed greatly to the problem of climate change due to intense and
unrestricted burning of fossil fuels. These fossil fuels release greenhouse
gases, which seem to be the reason for the current climate catastrophe. While
placing responsibility on past generations would be quick and simple, it would
obviously fail to create any action to address climate change. So where does
the responsibility lie? Fossil fuels allowed many economies to grow at rapid
paces. Due to this growth, individuals in affluent parts of the world are now
able to live luxurious lives with easy access to food and water, a benefit not
accessible to everyone. Just like any accomplice in a crime, if the benefits of
the crime are passed on, the beneficiaries become partially responsible. In the
case of climate change, the benefits of past generations’ usage of fossil fuels
have been passed down to the affluent population of our world today, along with
the duty to act upon their consequences.
In
summary, everyone has a responsibility to care for the earth, especially the
affluent individuals of our world. The only way that this responsibility will be
fulfilled is through both personal AND social action, since anything less will
not result in any significant change. While personal action is an important
piece of our efforts to control climate change, it is certainly not acceptable
as the only course of action.
2 comments:
Spencer, in regards to your statements concerning moral obligation, I'm wondering how you feel the concept of free will fits into your model, if at all? Do we have a choice in our lives to decide for ourselves what is right and what we must or mustn't do, or do all people have to submit to this collective goal you set forth?
Also, this notion of responsibility for the woes of the past is another facet of your argument I find interesting. I'm wondering if you have expanded this beyond environmental issues or if you are referencing the likes of unjust war overseas, atrocious enslavement both domestic and abroad, etc. Do you feel that these actions also cast a shadow of guilt upon Americans who all benefit from these grievous acts?
Griffen,
I very much appreciate your taking the time to read my thoughts! I find your questions and interests to not only be extremely helpful in my thought process development, but also in my overall view of what it truly means to be responsible for something. In any form of responsibility, however, free will always has the final say. If I were to accidentally crash my car into yours, I am responsible, but I can still choose whether or not to accept it. So yes, free will has a role in this decision as well. I guess (at least for me) that the decision whether or not to act on your responsibilities is really just an indicator of the type of person you want to be.
As far as your connection to other past events, I do believe that we are responsible to an extent. In the case of war though, it is a two sided endeavor where both sides are fighting for benefits in the future (and both sides receive consequences). By fighting a war, one could say that we already earn the right to those benefits because of the loses we endured.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.