Obligations to Climate

How much of an effort are people morally obligated to make to prevent or reverse climate change?

People I think are morally obligated to make at least some effort to slow down and possibly prevent climate change. They are especially obligated to put in as much effort as they can when the action comes to little cost to them. What I mean is that, while it would be nice if every person gave up their cars, people aren't going to be inclined to do so. Giving up motor transportation in this society would greatly effect most people's lives, as they have jobs that are more than 20 miles away and they have children that they need to bring to school. They could however do other things, which would minimally affect their lives. They could separate their trash into regular trash, recyclables, and compost. Most people could become vegetarians, which would work towards eliminating approximately 1/5 of the world's greenhouse  gases; the move to become vegetarian would also contribute towards helping solve poverty problems (it takes 12 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of meat - that's inefficient). If people feel inclined to do more, then they ought to do so.

You Did It First

Should those who, in the past, contributed more to climate change have to contribute more towards fixing it?

I don't think that contribution to climate change should necessarily relate to how much a country ought to do to fix it. I think that there is a correlation, in that a country that contributed greatly towards climate change, likely has the resources and ability to contribute towards helping fix it. I think that a country should contribute as much as it can to fixing it. If a country once contributed largely to climate change, but is now a third world country, or no country at all, they obviously don't have to contribute as much. To me, it seems silly to dally when something so important is on the line; I don't think we ought to bicker about who ought to contribute more because they caused more damage - it's a childish game comparable to "you started it." The situation is important enough that, simply, every person in every country ought to contribute as much as they can in order to fix the problem.

Contributions

Common people, too, contribute to the tragedy of the commons. While it would be nice to blame the large industries that contribute towards the destruction of our environment/climate, we cannot let the blame fall on them. Society is comprised of individuals, all of who have a "choice" to contribute or not to contribute to the problems of climate change. Many of the actions that the common people do support the large industries that we'd like to blame. The oil industry, for instance, is nasty and devastating to the climate, it is, however, the every day person who uses a car, instead of walking, to go one mile up the road. It is the common person who refuses to protest against the oil industries and it is the common person who refuse to support other sources of energy to power cars. It is the common person who eats meat and thus supports the meat industry that contributes to 20% of the worlds greenhouse gas (methane, produced by cows, is a very powerful gas).

Wasting Time on Revenge

In response to Brian - full post here

I agree with you and Avery, naturally. I think that people favor retribution because it makes them feel better, as people who have done a great wrong, apparently deserve the same. We've already pointed out that this is not appropriate, so instead I'll talk about religions.

One of my cousins recently posted something which read something akin to "Don't seek revenge, karma will eventually come back to hurt those who hurt you." I found that to be interesting and pathetic because it is basically saying "don't act in revenge, but hope for it." This still a kind of revenge, which is seemingly contrary to the first message. This cousin identifies as Christian so I tried to identify a genuinely Christian response to that idea. I came up with this "Don't waste your time on revenge. We all deserve to punished for all of eternity; but even those who hurt you can be forgiven and will go to heaven and enjoy paradise and happiness." This message, it seems, is contrary to retribution. Even excluding the historical Jesus, Christians ought to be against retribution.

Nazis =/= Monsters

I think that it is morally unethical to desensitize ourselves to human by referring to them as something negative. For instance, some people may think torture against humans is completely unethical. They could then insist, foremost, that animals used as food are not human, so it is okay to torture them in the process of creating food. Some of the people will also make exceptions to their no torture rules when the torture involves certain groups. An American might say that torturing a member of Al-Qaeda is okay because the members of Al-Qaeda are monsters who attacked America. Similarly, a Jewish person may say that it's okay to torture a Nazi because Nazis are monster who killed many Jewish people. This is inconsistent and a prime example of why we should strive to keep personal and ancestral bias out of ethics.

Necessary Conditions for Torture

The necessary conditions that I think would allow for torture are as follows (I tried to place them in order):

Firstly, the lives of a sufficiently large number people must be at risk.

Secondly, there must be no other conceivable way to prevent the bomb from causing harm. 

Thirdly, the torturer, or the institutions supporting the torturer, must be certain, beyond a shred of a doubt, that the person they are torturing has the information necessary to prevent the bomb from causing harm. 

Fourthly, the torturer must use the smallest sufficient amount of force necessary to procure the information.
Finally, the institution supporting the torturer should sufficiently compensate the person who was tortured; the institution has committed a crime by doing a substantial amount of damage to the person who was tortured. If the person who was tortured planted the bomb, they should still receive sufficient compensation, though that does not mean that they should be exempt from prosecution.


Note, while these are my current necessary conditions, I am willing to change them if some brings a convincing argument before me.

Question 1

Would issuing warrants to torture actually help to regulate torture, or would they make it more widespread?

I, personally, think it would do neither. I think that it would only legitimize the torture that already happens, and make it more open. I don't think that allowing torture warrants would equate to the government torturing more people than they need to torture. I think that would should certainly set up a a list of necessary conditions for torture, and we should indeed be worried when the government strays from that. I think that is the way with most government actions though. People ought to be more aware of what the government is doing. At any rate, if the public watches the government actions, warranting torture may in fact regulate torture. This is risky, in that the government can easily sway people to think that torture is for their own safety.